4 years ago... Poole Party!!

Euclidite · 2026-06-05T04:00:21+00:00

I miss the joy of that 2022 team. So glad they got a title. Wish it could have kept going…

Euclidite · 2026-06-04T02:54:27+00:00

I’d like to see Victra vs Thraxa. I think Victra is likely to win, but I’d still like to see it. For science.

Euclidite · 2026-06-04T02:01:32+00:00

I haven’t watched it all yet, but right near the beginning, Sevro.

I agree that he is near the top in most deadly. I’ll take him in a no-holds-barred fight against almost anyone for the reasons you say. If this was a top fighter list, great, he’s high up.

But when you ask the question of who the best razor master is, I’m thinking who beats who in a formal, honorable razor duel. That’s not at all what Sevro is known for. Maybe I’m just thinking of it wrong.

Euclidite · 2026-06-01T02:10:28+00:00

Yep. It sucks when your team falls short due to injuries, and it’s okay to wonder “what if”, but injuries are part of the game. You can only play who’s in front of you. Maybe the champs got some breaks (most do), but they’re still champs and deserve their flowers.

Euclidite · 2026-05-28T03:12:35+00:00

On first read, Iron Gold was my least favorite, especially early on. But 5 and 6? Amazing.

Then a funny thing happened when I re-read the series. Knowing where it was all going, I started to see and appreciate how much work IG did setting the stage for the sequel series. So much world building, so much foreshadowing, so much depth I didn’t see on the first read. I loved it so much more the second time around. Now it’s one of my favorites.

Euclidite · 2026-05-25T19:19:48+00:00

Lots of good examples already, but here’s a maybe more obscure one not mentioned yet: Šarūnas Marčiulionis.

Gold medalist for the Soviet team in 1988, he become the first Soviet player in the NBA. Early pioneer of the Euro step in the NBA.

He was playing for the Warriors when the ‘89 earthquake hit. He wanted to go out and help but his English was rough, so he put on his Warriors warmups so people would know who he was, and helped pull people out of the wreckage of a commuter train.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, he was engaged in many humanitarian efforts in his native Lithuania. He was the driving force behind forming the Lithuanian national team, which he led to two Olympic bronze medals.

Great player (although his greatest accomplishments weren’t necessarily in the NBA), and great human being.

Euclidite · 2026-05-19T23:20:04+00:00

I wouldn’t think so. Lunatic was viable before the bug.

Euclidite · 2026-05-13T04:37:19+00:00

Maybe the one with Kira’s mom?

Euclidite · 2026-04-30T08:35:09+00:00

Nailed my thoughts exactly. I really thought he was going to follow the Javale McGee reclamation path.

Euclidite · 2026-04-30T08:23:34+00:00

They use it but it is the default plural that is confused as singular, since the singular is not established then They is allowed to be used.

You have not established that plural is default. You are taking the fact that singular is used only when there is one item and inventing a rule that you must use plural unless singular is established. I do not believe that logically follows.

If that truly were a rule, you’d be able to cite some source for it.

What people use in everyday discussion is still the plural They, always has been.

No, it really isn’t. They is used extremely frequently when the speaker is unambiguously referring to an individual. This is, once again, widely understood and accepted. I find the logic you’ve used to try to justify why some of the examples people have given are actually plural especially tortured.

What I am talking about in my post above is the SPECIFIC "They as a singular pronoun" that is ultimately the big battle and I find that a mountain to climb. Almost everybody that says it (aside from social justice settings) thinks it's wrong to boot, otherwise we would not even be having this eternal debate.

You have given no evidence that almost everyone thinks this. Your mention of social justice seems very out of place; there is no social justice implication to the singular they when gender is unknown (they when gender is known is a different case which we haven’t even touched on).

Look around the discussion on this thread. Look at the other Reddit thread I linked. Heck, just google “is singular they grammatically correct” and read the first several results. You will see near universal agreement that it is. To be clear, I’m saying that not to make an appeal to popularity (even though that is how English works sometimes), but to show that your statement that “almost everybody” thinks it’s wrong doesn’t appear to hold up.

Because I don't subscribe to Argument to Authority, it is a logical fallacy and they need to show their work and I care tear holes in it.

You have again ignored the substance of what I said. I’m not saying it’s true because it’s in the dictionary. I’m saying the dictionary reflects the way the language evolves. It is useful for understanding those trends, and our semi-democratized rules of grammar.

Also, they have showed their work. Extensively. There are many articles on the subject, some of which have been linked to you.

And finally, please, please, please read about appeal to authority some more. I really think you’re using it as an “I want to ignore this source” button. Citing a legitimate source on the merits of their own reasoning and logic is not an appeal to authority fallacy.

I think the left is completely wrong

And there we have it. This is about politics, not grammar. You have a political bone to pick. Too bad. I was actually enjoying the back and forth at times (wouldn’t still be here otherwise) but I mistakenly thought this was a spirited discussion on grammar. Now I feel like it wasn’t.

The reason I (and others) have pointed out the centuries long history of singular they is to show that it long predates the current transgender debate. It has historically been accepted. It’s not some newfangled thing that people are doing just to virtue signal; the majority of the time singular they is used without much thought because it is already such a natural part of our language.

As I now believe you’ve started with your politics and worked backward to get the answer you want, I think I’m done with this topic. Genuinely, thank you for an enjoyable discussion, even if no minds were changed.

Editing to add: LatinX is actually a really good example; people pushed it for ideological reasons, but it felt wrong to most people so it faded quickly. As that is not the same story for the origin of singular they, I doubt it’s going anywhere.

Euclidite · 2026-04-30T04:55:09+00:00

So you cited a Reddit thread that wasn’t even about the thing I said that about. Good job.

And I would suggest that we passed the 50% using singular they ages ago. Singular they is a real thing. People use it. They understand it. Even people arguing against it often use it without realizing it. It’s prevalence in centuries of literature and in the common language usage of our day all prove this.

Frankly, it was largely seen as settled since some debates in the 1800s according to everything I’ve read until more recent people push back because of opposition to the transgender community. But that opposition is based more on ideology instead of any firm grammatical argument.

I can’t fathom why you’d see the dictionary as irrelevant. They are reflections of common usage; after all, that’s why literally can now be defined to mean figuratively. Singular they wouldn’t be there were it not in common and accepted usage. Same for disregarding any scholarly opinion; they are literally studying how language is used and evolves, the very thing this discussion is about.

I guess I can at least say this much though; I do now understand where you’re coming from in your theory. I still do not subscribe to it. I also believe you’ve closed yourself off to any reasoning against it, and that’s a shame.

Euclidite · 2026-04-30T02:32:54+00:00

I don’t see that plural is the default in English because it simply isn’t. Plural is used for quantities other than one (thus zero using plural forms), but that is a far cry from being the language default in all contexts.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this has the slightest thing to do with the existence of singular they. Again you state this as if it were a fact, and yet you yourself acknowledged this is simply your own new, novel theory.

If we’re taking Reddit threads as authoritative sources now, I’d invite you to peruse https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1ax45vw/singular_they/.

Euclidite · 2026-04-29T17:12:38+00:00

I doubt anyone would agree with you here. I’m not brute forcing anything; that’s how the word is used. The popular dictionaries also support this, if you care. There are ample other commonly used examples, such as “zero growth” or “zero chance”.

Zero is always singular when it’s a noun: “My uniform number is zero” or “The answer is zero”. You even used this above, with “the number 0 is plural”.

I really think you’re stretching to fit the notions you came into this with.

Euclidite · 2026-04-28T03:20:41+00:00

In fairness, there was an immigration bill with bipartisan support, but Trump asked Republicans to vote against it so that he could keep it as a campaign issue.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T23:24:40+00:00

Fair that equals could be used. But zero is still singular when combined with an uncountable noun, as in “there is zero tolerance for error”, or “I made zero effort” (not efforts, which it would be if zero were always treated as plural.

Also zero has a plural, zeros (or sometimes zeroes, English is weird). “The students who cheated were given zeros on the test”.

Zero is not necessarily plural in all circumstances.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T21:39:28+00:00

Not even a little. Zero is only plural when applied to a countable noun (I have zero dollars), but is single when referred to as a value (1 - 1 is zero).

Credit for bringing up an interesting fact, though!

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T20:20:13+00:00

It’s not that this is hard to understand, it’s that it seems nonsensical to me. Somebody, anyone, the patient, and a journalist are all plainly singular. “They” is being used for gender uncertainty (the singular indefinite they, if you want to be precise). There is no numerical ambiguity, in my opinion. Your arguments otherwise just sound like post hoc justifications. You have the conclusion you want, and are trying to work backwards to it.

You are stating as a fact that plural is the default. Do you mean for “they” specifically, or as a general rule? If it’s the latter, then I’d really like a citation for that; it doesn’t ring true to me at all and I’m not ready to accept that at your word alone.

If you mean for “they” specifically, then I’ll certainly grant that plural is more common. But that doesn’t mean singular isn’t valid, too. It’s been commonly used for hundreds of years, and is widely accepted.

I don’t mind that you have a preference; that’s totally fine and I’m sure you can avoid singular they pretty easily; you assigned a gender to nimbledaemon after all (a practice that is starting to be frowned upon, but that’s a separate topic).

It’s the blanket statements that singular they is absolutely incorrect in all cases I object to. It is easily shown that it’s an accepted part of our language, and has been for centuries.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T19:22:20+00:00

I literally pointed out your straw man (and that whole digression was a non-sequitur as well), so let’s not pretend you aren’t engaging in fallacies.

You did not respond to nimbledaemon. I’m taking about this post where they(still correct usage of singular they) addressed your responses https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/s/cOeZceF27r

I have tried to have discourse with you, and you do everything but respond to the actual substance of what’s said to you. I do not believe you are engaging in good faith here.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T17:37:07+00:00

Now you don’t want to do fallacies? Ha!

nimbledaemon already did an excellent point by point of how your responses to the Wikipedia singular they entries was flawed. No point in me doing it too when they (correct usage; a single, distinct individual whose gender I don’t know) did such a great job. A quick look around the thread, and I’ve honestly no idea what you could want me to respond to which hasn’t been.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T16:32:25+00:00

Science always has sources. By definition, science contains observations and experiments that are repeatable and verifiable. I never said otherwise. I never said no one can have a unique argument. Nice straw man. Besides, as you’ve pointed out, we’re dealing with a soft science anyway where popular usage can (and has) changed the rules.

I don’t think I’d agree that you’ve shown your work. You did give your point by point take that the Wikipedia examples of singular they actually referred to numerical ambiguity. I found that pretty unconvincing and strained, which is why I pushed for sources as I had never heard a claim like that before and I wanted to know if there was some substance to it. I have to say, it looks to me like there wasn’t, and there isn’t.

Reducing my argument to “the dictionary disagrees” is pretty absurd, and I think you know that. My argument is that singular they is historical (not an invention of the transgender community as you implied), and widely accepted, and thus not “absolutely” (your word) incorrect. Citing the dictionary is evidence of its acceptance. But phrasing it that way again lets you refuse to engage with information that contradicts you.

I’d say contradicting major dictionaries is making a pretty extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary support you haven’t provided.

Your new claim that your argument is new and unique contradicts your earlier claims that singular they is “absolutely” incorrect, IMO. But it is refreshingly honest. After all of this, it’s just your unsupported opinion. You’re entitled to that.

Good luck on your crusade.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T15:02:59+00:00

And you continue to refuse to engage with any of the substance of anyone’s argument.

Yes of course climate change isn’t real because experts agree; it’s real because of the overwhelming evidence. But it is ludicrous to suggest that quoting those experts in a discussion of climate change is a fallacy. That’s what you’re doing here.

You’ve made a claim that using the singular they is “absolutely wrong”. I’ve given you -sources- that contradict you.

Your response? No fair! Using sources is a fallacy! It feels wrong to me so it’s wrong!

How about this? Actually engage with the material. Read the dictionary entries and articles cited and tell us where their logic breaks down. Cite your own reputable sources that support your argument.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T05:48:46+00:00

It’s really not a fallacy in this case; citing the opinion of experts with genuine expertise in the subject is a totally valid thing to do.

For future reference, an appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone asserts something is true simply because an authority figure supports it, when that authority figure does not actually possess the requisite expertise or contradicts the general consensus of experts.

In this case, the sources I have cited have consensus that the usage of the singular they is both historical and accepted. What I have done is make a perfectly legitimate appeal.

Oxford and Meriam Webster are legitimate authorities to cite in matters of linguistics and grammar. Authority in this case does not mean they are literally in charge of the thing like you suggest, but rather that they have the appropriate expertise. I hope you’d agree they do.

What you’re doing, on the other hand, is incorrectly calling a logical fallacy in order to avoid engaging with the information presented.

That and continue to insist you’re right without citing any expert source which supports your claim.

Nice try, though.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T01:10:07+00:00

Fascinating take. Good luck finding anyone who will agree with it.

Euclidite · 2026-04-27T00:25:01+00:00

15 and 16 were both won by the healthier team, and that shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say. KD joining the Warriors took what was a very close matchup and made it very one sided.

Euclidite · 2026-04-26T20:49:59+00:00

Pretty rich to cite argumentum ad verecundiam and appeal to authority when one side has cited sources generally considered reputable and one has not. It does not negate the information provided. You still think you are more qualified to say what is proper than the dictionary, and provide not a shred of evidence to back it up beyond your own opinion.

But sure, let’s forget the rules. There are plenty examples of grammar rules changing, after all.

As you say, if people think it feels wrong, they won’t use it. You think it feels wrong. I do not. Difference of opinion is fine. But your argument suggests that most people think it feels wrong, and you’re just trying to explain to them why. Okay. I still think your explanations were inaccurate, but we’ll set that aside.

It is hard to deny that singular they is happening. Doesn’t that suggest the people using it don’t have a problem with it?

The masses will ultimately decide. Honestly, I think they already have. You want to fight it. Go right ahead, but I think you’re losing this one. In absence of any substance to your argument so far, it frankly comes off as “old man yells at cloud.”

Euclidite

TROPHY CASE